Other recent articles under: The Environment as of Dec 23, 2007
Topic: The Environment
Eco-centrism, Global Warming, Environmentalism, and Other Loony Religeous Movements
Bears, Wolves, Cougars, Alligators, Political Action Groups, and Other Dangerous Predators by Earl Todd Singleton
(libertarian)
Sunday, December 23, 2007
If the self-proclaimed "environmentalists" would all just find something useful or productive to occupy themselves, the world would be a better place. The extinction of the passenger pidgeon has had no measureable effect on the "fragile ecosystem" we hear so much about. In fact, extinction is a good thing. We could be hiding from sabre-toothed tigers instead of drinking beer and watching football games if it weren't for extinction. (just an example, I don't watch football)
Inevitably, eco-centrist objectives lead to anti-human endeavers. The establishment of corridors for animal migration is a prime example. So that elk and grizzly bears can exist without the inconvenience of human activity, ranchers must be eradicated. And let's not forget the spotted owl hoax that devastated logging communities.
Then there is the "marine conservationist" lobby. Responsible for the ruin of fishing families around the country, their lobbying efforts are financed largely by sportfishing tackle manufacturers, aquaculture, and seafood importers. Democra$y at work.
When a bear, cougar, wolf, or some other vermin attacks a human being, great effort is mustered to blame human encroachment and examine the cause of the attack. Why not just eradicate the vermin? This approach would enrage those who worship nature, but may save a human life.
Then there's global warming. This collossal farce is a pretense for infinite regulation of human activity. And the perpetuation of this global travesty is evident in almost every media outlet (the Food Network doesn't go there).
I've been informed that "species are falling off the planet at an alarming rate". Am I to believe that gravity has become selective? Well that would be just as credible as the environmental movement itself.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 13
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Earl Todd Singleton only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Earl Todd Singleton is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-23 08:23:41
I think people want to conserve what is on the planet because they feel it might be nice for their progeny to enjoy the same planet they were able to.
Â
You come across as the type of person who tosses beer cans and cigarette butts out of the window of your Monster truck and drive back home to your trashy mobile home where you sweep ants off the counter to make your Spam sandwich.
I am ever astounded at the uglines of the human mind.
I never litter, I hate spam, and I live in a split level on the Gulf of Mexico. You have countered my impeccable reasoning with a baseless personal assault. Thanks for the example of a typical environmentalist reaction.
All I ask is that people be responsible, wise stewards of what is in there power to control. I try to do the same myself. There is a lot more we could do as a civilization to make this earth a more enjoyable place to live. However, (using Earl as an example if I can), It is a lot easier just to bury our heads in the sand and deny any problems. And while we are denying our negative impact on our environment, lets also make fun of those who are trying to do there part to effect positive change. Earl, you come across as one egocentric dude. I hope there is lots of sand down there in the Gulf to bury your head in.
The article denies nothing, while demonstrating how environmental activism tramples individual liberty and serves corporate interests. Unfortunately, insufficient comprehension skills may cause inappropriate reaction. I can't help that.
Instead of trying to eradicate wildlife (i.e. predators - grizzly bears, cougars, wolves) why not use your so-called evolved human brain to find new and creative ways to coexiset with critters that enhance the quality of life for a great number of people. When's the last time you visited a place like yellowstone, glacier park, yosemite? Come on Earl, we're not exactly living in a caveman era where we feel we need to conquer all things wild just because they might inconvenience our way of life a bit and make us alter our behavior. That's what makes us humans great. We have the capability to think and reason and find alternative ways to make things work. I'm sorry, When your individual liberty consists of ignorance in trying to incite others into mismanaging my/your natural resources then YEAH I have problems with that! I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but at least I try to have a responsible approach to environmental ethics. I personally have more respect for far left wing environmental activists than for your sorry type. My comprehension skills are enough to recognize a lousy article when I see one. Â
Posted By: Robert Berger
Date: 2007-12-25 07:16:30
You claim your article is well-reasoned and only those with comprehension problems would oppose. Without presenting a shed of evidence, you claim that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is a farce. I've seen enough evidence in writings by scientists, public TV specials, and news stories to believe there is a serious problem. However, the history of science has many examples of errant consensuses. If you have good evidence to present, present it, but don't try and pass off a diatribe as good reasoning.
After (finally!) getting around to reading your article, I just thumbed it! I like it! Who knows, I may even fall into that apparently endangered species category that you alluded to! You know, those who may actually have sufficient comprehension skills to respond appropriately... :)
Well, at least I've been persuaded of such by your impeccable reasoning... :)Â Maybe also a bit by your use of sarcasm with humorous effect. After all, it is somewhat a matter of priorities, don'cha think? I certainly feel that I'm worth a bit more than some spotted owl, although I won't go out of my way to deliberately eradicate them.
Personally, I love Ron Paul's approach to the environment - let the feds keep their cotton-pickin' hands off it, with the possible exception of enforcement of penalties against people or corporations that actually damage someone else. What a kooky concept! :)
Maybe I'll take your arguments seriously if you provide a speck of evidence to support them. There's plenty of evidence that global warming exists. Do you choose to ignore it?
Regrading your conviction that extinction is a good thing, it can be beneficial for others when it happens naturally. It's not happening naturally now. We're responsible for endangering the animals, so we should be responsible for keeping them safe.
No offense, but your remark about an animal attacking a human couldn't be more off the mark. When we try to figure out why the animal attacked the human, we do this after the incident. We don't watch the attack and say, "It's the human's fault," and walk away. Thought and scrutiny may reveal that the human was at fault in this case because he was provoking the bear's cubs. In this case, information can be sent out warning people not to provoke bear cubs. And that is what saves lives.
You say that global warming is used as an excuse to control human activity. No one's trying to control our activity. We Americans are still allowed to pollute and waste resources. They can take away our harmful oil, but they can't take away our ignorance and stupidity.
Albert Einstein is said to have said something to the effect that the consensus of 100 brilliant scientists is shattered by a single fact. From my point of view, the pro anthro induced GW consensus is in the same way at risk. GW skeptics need not rant, only continue to provide data and the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-13 13:11:29
I'll take your arguments seriously if you provide a speck of evidence to support them. There's plenty of evidence that global warming exists.
Two things, Sam. Actually, three.
Third one first: I know it's almost two and a half years since you got all smugly - try to recall the piety with which you originally posted your screed and forget all the pesky setbacks your religious cause has encountered in the last half a year.
First: the Scientific Method does not require skeptics of a hypothesis to provide evidence; it requires the proponents of the hypothesis to answer - fully - all skepticism. The proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming [renamed to "Climate Change" because of the pesky refusal of the planet to go along with the program] have not answered the skeptics skepticism, mostly just sneered at it.
And second, it is not now, nor has ever been, the position of the skeptics that the planetary climate is not in flux; nor, really, that humans are not implicated in some way in that flux. Just that human activity is not the sole or primary cause of "warming" that isn't really occurring, especially when not a single AGW proponent can answer why - 1000 years before the Industrial Revolution - the Medieval Warm Period occured, and from what source.
AGW true believers do not know what has caused past phenomena with any degree of accuracy; what gives them the arrogant gall to think they know what's causing current conditions?
We Americans are still allowed to pollute and waste resources.
Then we'd better get at it!
At this point in world history we pollute the least and waste by far the least, in direct comparison to any other nation.
Although we use the most.
Those are not incompatible realities.
The US famously [or infamously, depending] use 25% of the planet's energy. Yet we have only 5% of the world's population.
This leads the vacuous and numb-skulled to conclude that we are using 5x too much energy. ...and frequently these ninnies inform us of this from behind their computer keyboards where they commit such green-affirming tasks as facebooking endlessly into that good night. Turn off your computer, bub, and then we'll talk about per-capita energy use. And your Xbox, your Nintendo, your Wii, your Gameboy, your iPod, and every single one of your other gadgets.
The US, with 5% of the world's people, uses 25% of the world's energy, ... but makes 33% of the world "stuff".
Do the math on that; that is the definition of energy efficiency. A share of energy use is always going to be for "non-productive" purposes - always. Even in Botswana. Where the energy use-to-economic productivity is far less than ours.
...which means that even with our rapacious use of pointless eGadgets and SUVs, we are extremely UNwasteful - compared to the rest of the world.
For the amount of energy we use, we have surprisingly little pollution as well. Yes, you can point to the LA basin, and the Houston area, northeast Ohio, and various other places and gag and cough about it. Ever been to Mexico City? They use 1/10th the energy of the Greater LA area and the particulates, ozone and soot are between 10 and 20 times worse.
This is due in no small part to the energy efficiency we imposed on ourselves a generation ago. Remember when the purpose of environmentalism was to make "clean" use of energy? efficiently convert those long-chain hydrocarbons into component compounds - CO2, H2O, NxO - without any leftovers? Those leftovers are called "soot" and are short-chain hydrocarbons.
As a result, even though LA uses 10x the energy of Mexico City, LA air is 10x cleaner.
they can't take away our ignorance and stupidity.
Well, hopefully, if you return to see this, your ignorance and stupidity will be lessened somewhat by the exercise in perspective I just gave you.
I didn't badger you about your East Anglia crisis, or the continual James Hansen fraud. You are probably mortified enough as it is.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
